A key component in the exchange relationship between government and business in modern liberal democracies is the level of public trust that each institution enjoys. However, trust does not affect both equally. A fall in trust for government is likely to diminish a government's policy discretion much more than an equivalent fall in trust for business will diminish a business actor's capacity to make profit or shape public policy. In addition, there are good reasons to believe that government will tend to find it more difficult than business to maintain trust from its stakeholders, or to recover it when lost. In this paper, I insert a role for public trust dynamics into Lindblom's theory of the structural power of business. I then return to the debate in this journal on business power and the 2010 Australian mining tax I show that the existing accounts omit the role of trust in the conflict and as a result “discover” much more incompetence from the Australian government than really existed.

Decisions over state assistance to firms can hinge on whether politicians choose a strategy that favors particular interest groups, targets aggregate economic performance, or both. Which types of firms are more likely to receive financial help from the government? While standard interest group based explanations tend to see special interests dominating the political process, extraordinary economic challenges, such as financial crises, may make general economic concerns a greater priority for politicians. We argue that during financial crisis, politicians – who are always concerned with the economy – are even more likely to prioritize broad economic growth over helping particular groups. Politicians should favor general economic strategies over helping specific groups of firms because they have limited resources and wish to avoid sending a bad signal to other firms about helping those that fail. Using 2010 World Bank firm-level surveys done in Bulgaria, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, and Turkey, we find that politicians favored small dynamic firms with a proven ability to use resources well rather than the largest employers, those firms with the greatest lobbying capacity, or firms in particular sectors. We optimistically conclude that interest groups with disproportionate resources will not always get special treatment at the expense of others.

This paper contributes to both corporate political activity (CPA) research and capabilities theory research by offering models that better describe the process that managers undertake to nurture a political capability. This is done through the interplay of four factors inherent in political actions, namely (i) corporate structure, (ii) firm-government linkages, (iii) political access and (iv) public policy pressure. Additionally, recognizing that political capability attainment is not a binary endeavor, I offer a political capability continuum to better categorize the magnitude by which differing firms allocate resources toward molding public policy. This paper adds to the scant literature on management-focused CPA research that integrates the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm and political action research.

Why do autocratic regimes contain bureaucratic corruption in some economic sectors but allow it in other areas? This paper examines variations in governance outcomes and perceptions across firms in Morocco based on a survey of 659 businesses. Three factors explain better public services and control of corruption: the magnitude of potential rents that firms can exchange with the administration, the collective action capacity of the sector vis-à-vis the executive, and the taxability of the industry. Firms in sectors with low rent potential are more likely to coordinate, claim, and obtain better governance in exchange for taxes, whereas high-rent companies find it difficult to sustain effective pro-governance collective action. The findings shed light on business–state relations in autocratic political regimes that have to balance revenue raising goals, policy commitments to selected sectors, and incentives for grand corruption.

Wind energy presents significant opportunity to provide a series of public goods. Drawing on the ideas of J.Q. Wilson and E. Ostrom, we compare options to overcome the obstacles that stand in the way of deploying wind energy in two US states, Texas and Minnesota. Texas outperformed Minnesota in deploying wind energy technology despite Minnesota's ample wind and other natural advantages. To explain this gap in performance, we argue that Texas outperformed Minnesota because of a more fitting governance system and rules for determining (i) boundaries, (ii) cost and benefit allocation, (iii) conflict resolution, and (iv) rule revision. Our approach sheds an alternative yet overlooked lens upon the topic of wind energy development by focusing on how the concentration of power and authority in the hands of a few dominant public and private elites can lead to the successful deployment of a complex renewable technology under some circumstances.